Linearity vs Sandbox Style.

Let me start by setting the scene here.  

Game A is a game that offers no real exploration and your path is set from Point A to Point B.

Game B allows you to roam around in a large area, and you can get from Point A to Point B by various means.

When asked which is right, you'd get a mixed result.  After all, platformers like Mario and Sonic are type A by nature, whereas games like Grand Theft Auto fall under type B.

When asking someone about Linear games, you may get responses like "easy", "boring", or "insults my intelligence"

You smug bastard.

But is this really the case?  Well, in a word, no.  There are games that are fairly linear through and through, but most games fall in between.  Now, I'm going to rip into a game that I like very much below: Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas.

The story of GTA:SA was well written, the world was expansive with several full cities to explore, and tons of little side missions you could undertake.  But in terms of story, it was fairly linear.  You had to do mission A to mission B, and all those side missions you did had no real bearing or relation to the rest of the game.  If you did some side missions for Cesar, it didn't relate towards doing missions for Smoke or Ryder, and vice versa.  While the world is open, it's not a truly open game.  for that to work, mission order would be very important, at least in my book.

Hey Niko, my world feels more alive, and it's on older hardware.

Another prime example of this type of open world/closed story would be Saints Row 2.  Possibly my most favorite Sandbox game (Have yet to play through SR3) with 4 major storylines.  The problem is though, apart from the radio newscaster keeping up to date with what you do, the rest of the world really doesn't.  The Ronin aren't intimidated by the fact you killed Mareo.  The Samdi don't flinch or change at all once the head of the Ronin has been burned at sea.  

This was such a huge opportunity to blend the stories together.  Instead they feel detached and kind of annoying.  The story is great, don't get me wrong, but with such a fragmented story, the world kind of loses some of it's vibrancy.  It's a game world with lots to do, with a good story, but the story segments don't interact.

Then we look at a game that looks linear on the surface, but is possibly one of the most open games I have ever played.  Alpha Protocol.

You thought you heard the last of me?  HAH!.

After the introduction missions, you become a rogue agent.  It's your task to uncover what's going on.  You can do operations in either Moscow, Taipei, or Rome.  I did my first operations in Moscow, then Taipei, then Rome.  What happened though, is that what I did during the course of one mission was brought up later in another.  The fact I took a non-violent approach in the first few missions in Rome meant that I gained respect with the person who flagged me down for my 4th mission in the city.  

Moments like that floored me in that game.  

Above: Me

The scope of that game was massive.  It's a game with so much replay potential.  What will happen if I let the Middle Eastern Arms-dealer bribe me?  What if I execute him?  What if I arrest him, but later do something different?  Each thing you do has an impact on how the rest of the game plays out.  Even doing a small, side objective during a mission can reveal startling things about your supporting cast.  

Going back to missions in Rome, because i did missions in Moscow before going there, I heard one NPC try to blame me for what happened to weapon shipments in Moscow.  Now, when I first played this game on PC (very poorly mind you), I went to Rome first, and that guy said he had no clue what happened.  In the post-mission wrap-up screen, I actually saw one of the changes made to the world when it said that I was under suspicion due to what that guy said.  

In that aspect, Alpha Protocol is one of the most Open games I've ever played.  

Going back to the subject at hand, if you step back from how grandiose a world looks (like GTA) it could still end up being fairly linear.  Then you look at one that looks nearly linear as hell (Alpha Protocol), but it can be a very complex experience.  

Now, examples aside, since I have a knack for rambling, is how do we make a better game using these two formula?

It's hard to say.  if you can make a tightly controlled game that feels open through non-explorable means.  That's better to me than a game that's wide open and easy to explore, but feels kinda dead inside.  

This is how Liberty City felt to me in GTA IV.

Linear and Sandbox, When you think about it, they're usually in the same game.  Open world, linear story.  A truly open game though, would require such an astronomical budget that I don't know if any AAA company would want to take that risk.  I hear Bastion is good at crafting the narrative around you, but I haven't tried it for myself.

I'm interested to see which way this goes honestly.  A linear game can be far more fun if the ride is worth it.  Half-Life 2 is a very linear game, but the way the set-pieces and the dialogue is delivered makes the experience feel more natural.  Sometimes Sandboxes get to big for their own good, and can't really deliver these memorable moments because they're spread out too thin to make an impact.  

Alpha Protocol Review

So here's the deal...  This game is stellar.

Alright, let me expand on this, when I say 'stellar' I don't mean "perfect".  I mean "What I like it does pretty well".

We'll do a part-by-part breakdown here of what the game offers.

Overview: This is an espionage RPG.  You are a spy.  You are well trained.  This means, that even with 0 skill points in an ability, you can still be successful at something.  If you have 0 points in say, Shotguns, it just means you're not Blasty: The Shotgun God.  You're just Michael Thorton, Shotgun User.  This is a game that mixes research, reading characters in conversation, and gunplay.

Dialogue - There's a LOT of it.  Each thing you say has a chance to sway someone's perception of you.  You may get them to like, and hate you, all in the same conversation.  Having allies is good, but having someone fear you could be just as effective in this game.  The way the game handles conversation is not with the traditional "Pick a specific line to say", you actually pick the tone and attitude with which you say things.  Also, your choices are on a timer, meaning you have to pay attention to the conversation.  The timer pops up usually when someone else is talking, so your response feels more organic than the unnatural pause you'd find in other RPGs.  This makes conversation more engaging to me.

Characters - So far, the characters are diverse, yet believable.  Each person seems like they could actually be a real person in their own way.  Voice acting is pretty solid as well.

Gunplay - Third-person, over the shoulder gunplay.  Pretty standard.  Up on the d-pad brings up your weapon menu (2 guns you bring in with you, with 3 different types of ammo for each). Right pulls up your gadget menu, where you'll find your grenades, healing kits, etc.  The amount you can carry is limited by your perks, and your armor.  Left pulls up your active skills (like Chain-Shot: A pistol only ability that slows down time so that you can line up 2-3 shots in rapid succession, 2 minute cooldown at first).  Down switches the shoulder which your shooting over, something pretty handy in a firefight from cover.

Personally, what I've been trying to do is stealth takedowns.  Or if the takedown fails, melee combat.  I also carry a silenced pistol and an Assault Rifle.  I try to focus on stealth, but can shoot my way out if need be.

Story - The story is straight out of a Hollywood movie.  It's full of revenge, backstabbing, government cover-ups, special agents, and Paramilitary Organizations.  You get yourself involved with the Chinese Secret Police, the Triads, the Mob, CIA, and more.

Odds and Ends - One of the things I like about the game is simple.  Replying to emails.  When you find some dirt on a company on a mission, you email it to yourself, and you can view it from your safehouse.  From there, you have 3 options.  You can send the info to your friend in the media, for a reputation bump and a small monetary compensation, you can blackmail the company for a good chunk of change, or you can forgo that and sell the intel on the black market to the highest bidder.

This game makes you either regret, or embrace your decisions.  Spare an arms dealers life?  Well you can either arrest him, or take his bribe of weapons, money, and black market dealer contacts.  But he may come back to haunt you in the future.  Or you could just kill him to remove a potential threat.  If you go all gung-ho on a mission, you may end up pissing off the CIA and they may send more reinforcements for your next mission.  this game is very ambitious when it comes to consequence.

I love playing the spy role.  I read the dossiers on everyone.  I gather intel from the black market, from missions.  I like knowing about these people.  Reading can give you a leg up in a conversation, you can find out what they like, or dislike, and turn it against them. A good piece of information can sway a conversation.

Downsides - Some of the character models can look a little weird at times.  Not quite uncanny valley weird, but not top-shelf graphics either.  A few bugs like bullets occasionally passing through a wall, or the rare freeze are all that's plagued me thus far.  If I can play through this game, and encounter only these bugs, I'll chalk this up as a good purchase that's not broken.

Recommendation - If you're looking for a pretty smart, third person RPG, you could do much worse than Alpha Protocol.  Gunplay is average, but you're here for the story and role-playing.  You can make your Thorton behave just how you picture a spy to act.  He can be the Suave Bond, the Hot Headed Bauer, or the sneaky Bourne.  Or a mix of all 3.